Ex Parte Cooper et alDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardDec 30, 201612416075 (P.T.A.B. Dec. 30, 2016) Copy Citation United States Patent and Trademark Office UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE United States Patent and Trademark Office Address: COMMISSIONER FOR PATENTS P.O.Box 1450 Alexandria, Virginia 22313-1450 www.uspto.gov APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO. 12/416,075 03/31/2009 James Randall Cooper 8119-95520-US 3740 22242 7590 12/30/2016 FITCH EVEN TAB IN & FLANNERY, LLP 120 SOUTH LASALLE STREET SUITE 1600 CHICAGO, IL 60603-3406 EXAMINER TAI, XIUYU ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 1759 MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE 12/30/2016 PAPER Please find below and/or attached an Office communication concerning this application or proceeding. The time period for reply, if any, is set in the attached communication. PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte JAMES RANDALL COOPER and RICHARD MAY Appeal 2015-007320 Application 12/416,075 Technology Center 1700 Before MARKNAGUMO, BRIAN D. RANGE, and LILAN REN, Administrative Patent Judges. RANGE, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL SUMMARY Appellants1 appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1, 3, 4, 8—14, 16, 20-31. We have jurisdiction. 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We AFFIRM. 1 According to the Appellants, the real party in interest is NeoTech Aqua Solutions, Inc. Appeal Br. 3. Appeal 2015-007320 Application 12/416,075 STATEMENT OF THE CASE Appellants describe the invention as relating to treatment of liquids and gasses in a chamber to remove contaminants. Appeal Br. 10. The invention could treat, for example, drinking water or water for industrial processing. Spec. 17. Appellants emphasize that their invention partially encloses a lamp with reflective material to increase intensity in the chamber. Appeal Br. 10. Claim 1, reproduced below with emphasis added to certain key recitations, is illustrative of the claimed subject matter: 1. An apparatus for the treatment of a liquid comprising: a chamber having at least one inner surface, wherein the chamber is adapted for passage of a fluid therethrough; an ultraviolet lamp, the ultraviolet lamp being disposed within the chamber, the ultraviolet lamp producing ultraviolet photons; an ultraviolet transmissive tube disposed within the chamber, the ultraviolet transmissive tube having an outer surface that faces the inner surf ace of the chamber and wherein the fluid remains substantially within the tube; a reflective surface enveloping the ultraviolet lamp by at least 80 percent, the reflective surface adapted so as to reflect at least a portion of light emitted by the ultraviolet lamp, wherein the reflective surface is at least 80 percent reflective, wherein the reflective surface is disposed on at least one of the inner surface of the chamber or the outer surface of the ultraviolettransmissive tube; wherein enveloping of the lamp by at least 80 percent and the reflectivity of the reflective surface being at least 80 percent are effective to deposit a majority of the ultraviolet photons within a volume of the fluid. 2 Appeal 2015-007320 Application 12/416,075 Appeal Br.2 15 (Claims App’x). REFERENCES The Examiner relies upon the prior art below in rejecting the claims on appeal: Morrow US 6,589,489 B2 July 8,2003 Chen US 2002/0043504 A1 Apr. 18, 2002 REJECTIONS On appeal, the Examiner maintains the following rejections: Rejection 1. Claims 1, 3, 4, 9—13, and 26—31 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over Morrow. Ans. 3. Rejection 2. Claims 8, 14, 16, and 20-25 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over Morrow in view of Chen. Id. at 8. ANALYSIS We review the appealed rejections for error based upon the issues identified by Appellants and in light of the arguments and evidence produced thereon. Cf. Ex parte Frye, 94 USPQ2d 1072, 1075 (BPAI 2010) (precedential) (cited with approval in In re Jung, 637 F.3d 1356, 1365 (Fed. Cir. 2011) (“it has long been the Board’s practice to require an applicant to identify the alleged error in the examiner’s rejections”)). After having considered the evidence presented in this Appeal and each of Appellants’ contentions, we are not persuaded that Appellants identify reversible error, and we affirm the Examiner’s § 103 rejections for the reasons expressed in 2 In this decision, we refer to the Final Office Action mailed October 8, 2014 (“Final Act.”), the Appeal Brief filed March 6, 2015 (“Appeal Br.”), the Examiner’s Answer mailed June 1, 2015 (“Ans.”), and the Reply Brief filed August 3, 2015 (“Reply Br.”). 3 Appeal 2015-007320 Application 12/416,075 the Final Office Action and the Answer. We add the following primarily for emphasis. Appellants argue rejections 1 and 2 together, and argue all claims as a group. See Appeal Br. 10-13. Therefore, consistent with the provisions of 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(l)(iv) (2013), we limit our discussion to claim 1, and all other claims on appeal stand or fall together with claim 1. The Examiner finds that Morrow teaches a UV radiation purifier with a housing, UV lamp, dielectric body, and UV reflective coating. Final Act. 3; see also Morrow Figs. 1 and 2 and accompanying text. The Examiner finds that Morrow does not specifically disclose the percentage of “reflective surface enveloping the ultraviolet lamp” but finds that Morrow teaches UV reflective coating enhances “the intensity of UV radiation impinging upon the fluid, hence improving efficiency of purification.” Final Act. 3; Morrow 6:20—22. The Examiner thus concludes that it would have been obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art to maximize the coverage to achieve better purification. Final Act. 3^4. A preponderance of the evidence supports the Examiner’s findings and conclusion. Appellants argue that “[although walls 24 and 32 in Morrow’s housing might have a reflective coating (Morrow, col. 6 lines 23—25), the other remaining walls are ‘coated with photo catalytic material [that] can then absorb UV3 . . . .” Appeal Br. 12. Appellants also argue that Morrow provides no reason for including a high degree of reflective surfaces. Id. at 13; see also Reply Br. 4. The preponderance of the evidence does not 4 Appeal 2015-007320 Application 12/416,075 support Appellants’ position. To illustrate, Figure 1 of Morrow is reproduced below. 42 68 Figure 1 of Morrow is a schematic side view of an air purifier in accordance with Morrow 2:19—20. Morrow teaches, for example, that annular wall 24 is covered with UV reflecting screen mesh, that sleeve 38 may be provided with a UV reflective coating, that wall 32 has a UV reflecting screen mesh section 42, that the walls of UV chamber 60 have a UV reflective coating, that screen meshes 26 and 44 are UV reflecting, and that inner mesh 66 may be coated with UV reflective coating. Morrow 2:32—67; 3:45—60; 10:36—37. Figure 3a (not reproduced here) further depicts walls 24 and 32, housing 12, and inner mesh 66 which each have UV reflective coating. Id. at 6:12—29. Morrow teaches that the purpose of having UV reflective coatings on its interior is to “enhance the intensity of UV radiation in the dielectric body 30.” Id. at 6:20—25; see also id. at 3:53—56 (“the intensity of light inside the central cavity 34 will increase proportionately to the reflectance of the inner mesh cathode 66”). Thus, as a whole, the evidence establishes that Morrow encourages including UV reflective coating wherever possible on the interior of its purifier. 5 Appeal 2015-007320 Application 12/416,075 Where Morrow instead teaches the use of UV absorbing materials, these materials are used to “help ensure that any UV light reaching these extremities of the purifier are absorbed and do not leave the purifier . . . Morrow 6:25—29. Thus, Morrow places UV absorbing material at its exhaust and input. Id. Morrow also places UV absorbing material on the “outer wall of housing 12.” Morrow 5:42—48; see also Ans. 11. Thus, Morrow encourages UV reflective material inside its central cavity while also encouraging UV light absorbing material for the exterior portions of its device in order to “reduce the prospect of ozone leaking” from the purifier. Morrow 4:13—15. Although Morrow does not explicitly state that its reflective surfaces should “envelop [] the ultraviolet lamp by at least 80 percent” as recited in claim 1, Morrow encourages a very high degree of reflective surfaces around its ultraviolet lamp, and we agree with the Examiner’s conclusion that it would have been obvious in view of Morrow to meet the “at least 80 percent” limitation. Ans. 4, 11—12. Morrow teaches that the amount of reflective material increases UV radiation in the dielectric body, and the evidence supports that discovery of an optimal amount of such reflective material would have been within the skill of the art. See In re Applied Materials, Inc., 692 F.3d 1289, 1297 (Fed. Cir. 2012) (“A recognition in the prior art that a property is affected by the variable is sufficient to find the variable result-effective.”); In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 276 (CCPA 1980) (“[DJiscovery of an optimum value of a result effective variable in a known process is ordinarily within the skill of the art.”). Appellants also argue that modifying Morrow so that it provides 100% reflectivity would change its operation so it would not work. Appeal 6 Appeal 2015-007320 Application 12/416,075 Br. 12—13; see also Reply Br. 3. Claim 1, however, does not require 100% reflective surfaces. A person of ordinary skill in the art following Morrow’s teachings would have naturally reached the at least 80 percent recitation of claim 1 as explained above. In reply, Appellants also argue that adding reflectivity to Morrow could possibly “reduce intensity levels in the Morrow system.” Reply Br. 4. As explained above, however, Morrow already teaches reflective surface throughout its interior components such that no modification of Morrow’s teachings is required. Moreover, Morrow teaches that its reflective surfaces increase intensity levels. See, e.g., Morrow 3:53—56, 6:20-25. Because Appellants identify no reversible error, we sustain the Examiner’s rejections. DECISION For the above reasons, we affirm the Examiner’s rejection of claims 1, 3,4, 8-14, 16, 20-31. No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a). AFFIRMED 7 Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation